ML19332E239
| ML19332E239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E236 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912060407 | |
| Download: ML19332E239 (2) | |
Text
r
-4 p nes UNITED STATES g,
9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)(
9 wAssiNatoN, D. C. 20665 g
SAFETY. EVALUATION.BY.THE OFFICE.0F. NUCLEAR. REACTOR _. REGULATION AMENDMENT NO. 53.70. FACILITY.0PERATING. LICENSE.NO..NPF.18 COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY _
LASALLE COUNTY. STATION.. UNIT 2 DOCKET.WO. 50-374
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed amendment to Operating License NPF-18 would revise the LaSalle l
Unit 2 Technical Specification by deleting specifications added by amendment l
30 to allow installation and use of the Fine Motion Control Rod Drive (FMCRD) l during the Unit 2 Cycle 2.
This amendment would therefore return the l
Technical Specification to their original state. This amendment is in l
response to a CECO letter dated Septerter 7, 1988.
CECO letters dated May 25 and August 29, 1989 were received after this amendment was noticed I
and provided information that was clarifying in nature.
L 2.0 EVALUATION By letter of February 25, 1986, Connonwealth Edison the licensee for LaSalle Unit 2 requested a review and approval of General Electric Topical Report NED0-31120. "LaSalle Unit fine Motion Control Rod Drive Demonstration Test an existing peripheral (location 02-43) proposed test consisted of replacing Description," dated December 1985. The locking piston control and drive (ILPCRD) module with a Fine Motion Control Rod Drive (FMCRD) module for one plant fuel cycle (approximately 18 months). The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the capability of the FMCR0 module in a reactor environment. At l-the end of the test period, the FMCRD module was to be removed for inspection and the plant restored to its pretest configuration. This request was approved for Unit 2 Cycle 2 in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated August 15, 1986.
TechnicalSpecificationSpecialTestException(3/4.10.8,3/4.10.9,and 3/4.10.10) were added to the Technical Specification to allow testing of the FMCRD at the control location 02-43. These Technical Specification Special Test Exceptions are being deleted, along with the references to them containeti in Technical Specifications 3.1.1, 3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.7. 3.1.4.1, and 3.1.4.2 for Operational Conditions, since the FMCRD module was removed during the refueling outage that concluded in February 1989. Technical Specification 3.9.1 is being modified to delete the requirement to fully insert the FMCRD and disarm the motor electrically before core alterations. The basis for the Technical Specification Special Test Exception are also being deleted. These changes to the Technical Specifications will return the Specifications to i
their original state to coincide with the plant being returned to the pretest configuration. The staff finds the proposed amendment to be acceptable.
B912060407 891128 PDR ADOCK 05000374
....P PNU
~
2 3.0 ENVIRCNMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation and use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding thet this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for cat 4gorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR'51.22(b), no environmental im)act statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with tie issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
l The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations l
and the issuance of this amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Lawrence E. Kokajko Roger Lanksbury Paul Shemanski Dated: flovember 28, 1989 l